Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say it isn't read-only and isn't destructive; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a plan-tier authorization requirement and a hard limit on reversal (re-enabling is app-only, owner-only). It doesn't say what the call returns or whether in-flight executions are stopped, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the access requirement front-loaded, then the action, then the safety constraint. Nothing is padded and no sentence repeats the name or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with sparse annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: authorization tier, what the call does, and the limits on undoing it. Only the result/confirmation behavior is left implicit, which is minor here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented there as "Automation id." The description adds nothing about the identifier, but the schema already does the work, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Switches an automation OFF" states a specific verb and resource, and the explicit note that turning an automation back ON can only happen inside the app effectively distinguishes this tool from any hypothetical resume sibling. An agent knows exactly what this tool accomplishes without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear prerequisite (Advance plan key) and an explicit when-not: don't try to re-enable an automation through the API, since the account owner must do that in the WALoops app. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating whether deactivation is immediate or reversible via other endpoints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.